Plymouth Savings Bank v. United States Internal Revenue Service and Massachusetts Department of Revenue
187 F.3d 203 (1999)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Federal Tax Lien Act's 45-day safe harbor provision, a security interest in a contract right is considered 'acquired' when the contract is executed. The proceeds of that right, including accounts receivable earned from subsequent performance, are also deemed acquired at the time the contract is made, giving the security interest priority over an intervening federal tax lien.
Facts:
- On September 22, 1993, Plymouth Savings Bank (Bank) filed a financing statement giving notice of a security interest in the assets of Shirley Dionne (Dionne), who operated the Greenlawn Nursing Home.
- On April 13, 1994, Dionne executed a promissory note for an $85,000 loan from the Bank, granting a security interest in her personal property, including proceeds from services rendered and general intangibles.
- Dionne failed to make FICA tax payments, leading the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to assess liability and file a federal tax lien against her on February 14, 1995.
- On December 1, 1994, Dionne defaulted on her loan from the Bank.
- On March 31, 1995, exactly 45 days after the IRS tax lien was filed, Dionne signed a contract with Jordan Hospital (Hospital) to help it obtain a nursing facility license in exchange for $300,000.
- The contract stipulated that a final payment of $75,000 was due to Dionne two years after the license was approved.
- Dionne successfully assisted the Hospital in obtaining its license by mid-May 1995, but the Hospital never paid her the final $75,000 balance.
Procedural Posture:
- The Bank sued the Hospital in Massachusetts state court to recover the unpaid balance of its loan to Dionne.
- The state court granted summary judgment for the Bank, but directed it to file a declaratory judgment action to determine lien priority.
- The Bank filed a new action in state court, which the IRS subsequently removed to the U.S. District Court.
- The Hospital deposited the disputed $75,000 with the district court and was dismissed from the case.
- On cross-motions for summary judgment between the Bank and the IRS, the U.S. District Court ruled in favor of the IRS.
- The Bank, as appellant, appealed the district court's judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under the Federal Tax Lien Act, 26 U.S.C. § 6323(c), does a lender's pre-existing security interest in a debtor's after-acquired 'contract rights' have priority over a federal tax lien if the debtor enters into the contract within 45 days of the tax lien filing, even if the debtor performs the services and earns the payment after the 45-day period has expired?
Opinions:
Majority - Cudahy, J.
Yes, the lender's pre-existing security interest may have priority. Under the Federal Tax Lien Act and its implementing regulations, a taxpayer acquires a 'contract right' at the moment the contract is made, not when it is performed. The Bank's security interest was in Dionne's commercial financing security, which included the contract she signed with the Hospital. Dionne signed this contract on the 45th day after the IRS filed its tax lien, placing it within the safe harbor period of 26 U.S.C. § 6323(c). The regulations state that identifiable proceeds of such qualified property are considered acquired at the same time as the property itself. The $75,000 payment, though an account receivable earned later, constitutes the 'proceeds' of the contract right. By performing the service, Dionne effectively exchanged her contract right for an account receivable. Therefore, the Bank's security interest in the proceeds relates back to the date the contract was signed, giving it priority over the IRS's lien. The case is remanded to determine if the contract was made in the 'ordinary course of business,' a separate requirement for the safe harbor to apply.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'relation-back' doctrine for proceeds of contract rights under the Federal Tax Lien Act's 45-day safe harbor. By holding that proceeds are deemed acquired at the same time as the underlying contract right, the court provides significant protection and predictability for commercial lenders. It aligns the interpretation of federal tax lien law with the principles of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), where a security interest in collateral automatically extends to its proceeds. This ruling strengthens a lender's position against the IRS, confirming that a security interest in a contract made within the safe harbor period will defeat a tax lien, even if the money is not earned until after the period expires.
